By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Wii U to be priced at $299?

Tagged games:

happydolphin on 01 March 2012
RolStoppable said:
happydolphin said:
RolStoppable said:

The NES and SNES weren't propelled by third party software. It was Nintendo games that turned both systems into successes. You are conceding that the N64/GC and PS1/PS2 were equal when ignoring third party support. That's cerainly not how Nintendo should work or worked during their early days. Once again, I am not sure if that was your intention, because you follow that up with an insane leap in logic ("Nintendo's tradition is to heavily rely on third party support, that's why the N64 failed where the NES succeeded"). It is as if I am talking to Joelcool7 here.

What I'm trying to say, Rol, is that when it comes to the red ocean, Nintendo lost due to lack of 3rd party support. Otherwise they destroyed the PS. It's like as if I'm takling to a total noob here, no offense.

Is that your new strategy? Selective quoting? In the first of your three posts you made in response you cut off my post. The bolded was followed up by a "then again, ..." paragraph.

In the second post you go back to an old post in an attempt to start all over again, because you ran into at least half a dozen contradictions in the ongoing discussion.

And here, you are once again picking out one line that you respond to. You talk about red and blue ocean. The Wii was a blue ocean product, right? The Nintendo 64 was a red ocean product as you correctly noted. Now take a guess what the NES was.

It was red. The blue ocean came after, when Nintendo was out of options. Listen, I'm selective quoting because you're massacring the logic and history as it was.

I need to find the focal points and concentrate because I don't want to follow rabbit trails. I don't concede the points, I just don't want to address them right now, I want to get to the core.

For the record, I'm putting you back in your place because I've had quite enough of your condescention. If you haven't come to appreciate my reasoning and what bit of industry insight I've displayed thus far, then I'm not going to give it to you easy. I'm upping my game with you.



Around the Network
oniyide on 01 March 2012
pezus said:
RolStoppable said:
happydolphin said:
RolStoppable said:

The NES and SNES weren't propelled by third party software. It was Nintendo games that turned both systems into successes. You are conceding that the N64/GC and PS1/PS2 were equal when ignoring third party support. That's cerainly not how Nintendo should work or worked during their early days. Once again, I am not sure if that was your intention, because you follow that up with an insane leap in logic ("Nintendo's tradition is to heavily rely on third party support, that's why the N64 failed where the NES succeeded"). It is as if I am talking to Joelcool7 here.

What I'm trying to say, Rol, is that when it comes to the red ocean, Nintendo lost due to lack of 3rd party support. Otherwise they destroyed the PS. It's like as if I'm takling to a total noob here, no offense.

Is that your new strategy? Selective quoting? In the first of your three posts you made in response you cut off my post. The bolded was followed up by a "then again, ..." paragraph.

In the second post you go back to an old post in an attempt to start all over again, because you ran into at least half a dozen contradictions in the ongoing discussion.

And here, you are once again picking out one line that you respond to. You talk about red and blue ocean. The Wii was a blue ocean product, right? The Nintendo 64 was a red ocean product as you correctly noted. Now take a guess what the NES was.

Green ocean?

i loled that!



happydolphin on 01 March 2012

EBWOP: My own informal definition of Red Ocean. A market with many players and dense competition.

In the case of the NES, there were many competitors and many had tried Nintendo's SW formula, it was nothing new! What Nintendo did that was innovative was to enfore rules so as to ensure quality on their system. And that didn't change much for the N64.

Red Ocean it was, and not much of it changed in the N64 era.



happydolphin on 01 March 2012
RolStoppable said:

I asked you a question and you had a 50/50 chance of answering it correctly. You got it wrong. It is the base of your argument. You are arguing from a fundamentally wrong base, that's why you get yourself into one contradiction after another. You believe you know the truth, but that's not the case.

Define Red Ocean and prove to me that Nintendo's SW/HW strategy was any different from Atari's or Coleco's or all the others that came before them.

You, upon testing, also fail. That's why when we put our minds together and stop fighting and stop antagonizing will we come to understand. So many of the points you refuted saying the "Wii did it so what?" I told you, it was too little, too late. Period. The harm was already done.



happydolphin on 01 March 2012
RolStoppable said:
happydolphin said:
EBWOP: My own informal definition of Red Ocean. A market with many players and dense competition.

In the case of the NES, there were many competitors and many had tried Nintendo's SW formula, it was nothing new! What Nintendo did that was innovative was to enfore rules so as to ensure quality on their system. And that didn't change much for the N64.

Red Ocean it was, and not much of it changed in the N64 era.

The controller standard at the time was the joystick. America was moving towards 16-bit home computers after the video game crash. Nintendo launched a system with a weird looking controller and a processor from the 70s.

So what was red ocean about it? It actually sounds much like the Wii with its unconventional controller and outdated hardware.

That is nothing in comparison with the Cube to Wii revolution. 0. The inputs are the same, the ergonomics have simply changed.

Everything else that actually matters is red ocean. It pokes the eyes.

However, what Nintendo did with Mario was revolutionary, but it was still red ocean. (Pitfall being its analog)



Around the Network
Mummelmann on 01 March 2012

That's a decent launch price, they certainly shouldn't aim much higher. Oh wait, I forgot! Price doesn't matter!



happydolphin on 01 March 2012
RolStoppable said:

The inputs are not the same. Don't be silly.

Red ocean requires at least one direct competitor. The NES had none when it launched.

Super Mario Bros. was a game that was played with a radically different controller at the time. Pitfall has barely anything in common with SMB, that's why Pitfall became obsolete.

No, that's not why Pitfall became obsolete. That is history revision. Pitfall became obsolete because Atari became obsolete. And Atari became obsolete because of their failure at marketing, quality control and law.

Super Mario Bros. was an arcade game (Edit: concurrently to) before being a console game. Most arcades had a similar HW interface (joystick and 1 or 2 buttons included). No argument here.



happydolphin on 01 March 2012
RolStoppable said:

Red ocean requires at least one direct competitor. The NES had none when it launched.

Due in part to well-placed advertising, the Nintendo Famicom was a quick success. 500,000 consoles were sold in its first two months of release, far more than any competitors could claim. "Competitors" is a strong word, though, when one considers that inferior machines like the Atari 2800 (Japanese version of Atari 2600) sold at considerably higher prices than the Famicom. 1983 would also see the release of Sega's SG-1000, but it couldn't touch Nintendo's console. 
http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/july03/famicom/index3.shtml



happydolphin on 01 March 2012

RolStoppable said:

 And Atari itself sucked at making games, that's why they became obsolete. They couldn't compete with the high craftmanship of Japanese games.

Nintendo made Atari games, so did Namco and others. Their failure has nothing to do with that, it had to do with general failure in quality control. They were already dead when Nintendo was coming in, the whole market had crashed.

 

Super Mario Bros. may have been in the arcades, but it became a huge hit on the NES with its different controller. Just like many other games that were never in the arcades to begin with.

Rabbit Trails...

The NES controller wasn't revolutionary enough in contrast with the Cube to Wiimote. Even in and of itself I already told you it's the same input, different ergonomics. Why are you bouncing around, then expect me to treat your arguments squarely?



happydolphin on 01 March 2012
RolStoppable said:
happydolphin said:
RolStoppable said:

Red ocean requires at least one direct competitor. The NES had none when it launched.

Due in part to well-placed advertising, the Nintendo Famicom was a quick success. 500,000 consoles were sold in its first two months of release, far more than any competitors could claim. "Competitors" is a strong word, though, when one considers that inferior machines like the Atari 2800 (Japanese version of Atari 2600) sold at considerably higher prices than the Famicom. 1983 would also see the release of Sega's SG-1000, but it couldn't touch Nintendo's console. 
http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/july03/famicom/index3.shtml

Do you know what a direct competitor is? A company that competes on the same values. That's why the Wii wasn't a direct competitor of the 360 or PS3, even though technically the systems were competing for sales nonetheless.

Look up the Atari 2600 and Sega's SG-1000. They both used joysticks which was the standard at the time.

Differentiation is not equal to Blue Ocean strategy. It's a strategy technique in line with blue ocean, but it doesn't make the company's general approach blue ocean.

All companies differentiate. I'm sorry, your controller argument does not enroll Nintendo into blue ocean.